-255x255.jpg "Wikipedia")
On July 2, the Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI had appointed Bishop Gerhard Müller the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, arguably the most influential and prestigious of all the Vatican’s departments. The 64-year-old native of Mainz in central Germany was subsequently elevated to archbishop and made ex officio president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission. He also now heads the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei — the body charged with bringing the Society of St. Pius X into communion with Rome.
In this exclusive interview, given last month at the congregation, Archbishop Müller discusses his new role and how he expects to work with the Holy Father. He also reflects on the Second Vatican Council, discusses the sensitive discussions with the SSPX, explains his statements on Mary and the Eucharist that caused controversy in some quarters, and offers an update on the current situation regarding talks between the congregation and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. (Part 2 can be read here).
How are you settling in to your post, and what are your impressions of it, now that you have arrived in Rome?
So far, so good! We have plenty of work and plenty of problems to resolve, but I am not here for a holiday! I came here to assist the Holy Father and to work for the Kingdom of God. We believe that Jesus Christ founded his Church on the rock of St. Peter. Certainly, the Holy Father relies on the help of the congregations and dicasteries of the Roman Curia, particularly our dicastery, which concerns the promotion of our faith in Jesus Christ, what we believe in the Creed.
You’ve known the Holy Father for some time. What is your working relationship with him like?
We have a professional relationship, and I now have regular audiences with the Holy Father. But before my appointment here, I already had a lot to do with the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, and now I am the editor of his collected works, which hopefully will also be published in English soon.
So we have been linked for a long time, which does help our continued working together. I also worked closely with him on the International Theological Commission, of which he was the president.
Did the appointment come at all as a surprise to you?
Given that I had been a member of this congregation for a number of years, and that I had been a professor of dogmatics for years before that, it was not entirely surprising. There are, of course, plenty of other people who could have been appointed, but I am the editor of his collected works, he knows me very well, and he knows where I stand on things — so the Pope decided to appoint me.
Will the Holy Father be giving you plenty of freedom in your work?
The Holy Father will give me for my part all the freedom I need, and there is no opposition or contradiction, because our respective roles are very clear. The Holy Father is the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ. I am a bishop, and in this position of responsibility, I am charged with assisting the Holy Father in this specific area of competence. The Pope has to defend and promote the Catholic faith; the sole reason for the existence of this congregation is to assist the Holy Father in that task. We are not here to carry out our own activities or make our own judgments apart from him. That would be absolutely contradictory to our mission.
What will be your priorities as prefect, in terms of defending doctrine? Will your main focus, for example, be on post-Christian Europe?
Defending the faith is the second task we have. Our primary role is to promote the faith. The Church is not a fortress, but, rather, a sacrament, a sign, a symbol and an instrument for the salvation for all people. The apostles were sent into the world to preach the Gospel and to edify and instill hope in people. So we are the witnesses and missionaries of that faith, hope and love, and this is the first task of the whole Church.
The role of the congregation, therefore, is first and foremost to support that mission of the whole Church. Obviously, to do that today means that we have to defend the faith from the assault of secularism and materialism, which denies the transcendent dimension of human existence and therefore distorts the ethical, moral and intellectual orientation of society.
The Year of Faith begins Oct. 11. What will be your role during this special year?
There will be the Synod of Bishops regarding the Year of Faith in which I will participate, but, clearly, this congregation has its own priorities. Above all we need to address the challenges posed by the so-called new atheism, which in reality is aggressive in its intolerance of Christianity. The new atheists want to establish a world without God, which we can never accept. The Church needs to regain its confidence and once again find her own role in this world. We need to stop looking inward, towards ourselves, always discussing the same inter-ecclesiastical questions. We must concentrate our forces on the New Evangelization, especially in the old Christian countries of the West, which have lost their way a little.
The 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council also takes place Oct. 11. Some would argue that the Church has been hampered in its mission to evangelize by the confusion that followed the Council. Will there be initiatives during this Year of Faith to help remove some of that confusion?
The problems that we had after the Council were not caused by the Council. The development of the secularist mentality, for instance, had nothing to do with the Council. It came about before the Council, in the 19th century, when we had secularism promoted by liberals who denied the supernatural and saw the Church only in terms of a charitable institution.
But the role of the Church is not only to help in the social field; its secondary mission is to help the bonum commune [the common good]. But the first reason for its existence is to preach the Gospel and thus give hope to the world. Therefore, we have an interlinking between the event of the Council and assault of secularism. The waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council, but they accumulated into a tsunami at the same time as the great event of the Council. Partly because of this coincidence, a certain type of secularism then found its way into the inner circles of the Church.
The result is that we now not only have secularism coming from outside the Church, but we have a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to lose our direction a little. We must look to our own resources — the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church — and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead.
As there continues to be a lack of clarity over the Council, particularly in its interpretation, could an encyclical from the Pope clarify matters?
Yes, we need an authentic interpretation of the magisterium of the Council. The Pope offered a good and faithful interpretation of the Council when he said it did not create a new Church. Like every other ecumenical council, Vatican II must be interpreted according to the Tradition, based on Revelation and on Scripture.
The great achievement of Vatican II was that it brought the doctrine of the Church into a whole; it provided an overview. In other words, it didn’t underline only some aspects of doctrine like in other councils, but, rather, summarized the main contents of our belief. What it says in Dei Verbum about divine Revelation, for example, is a summary of all that is said in the magisterium about personal revelation. And in Lumen Gentium we have a comprehensive vision of all the dimensions belonging to ecclesiology, the sacraments founded by Jesus Christ, the hierarchy, the laity, the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit. We have a unified ecclesiology. Also in Gaudium et Spes and in other documents, we can say that the Second Vatican Council collected together the basic elements of our doctrine in one place.
But if it does present such a comprehensive view of ecclesiology, why are there groups such as the Society of St. Pius X who want to stick to “frozen tradition,” as it were, rather than come into full communion? Does this suggest errors in this comprehensive vision?
We have breakaway groups, not only on the traditionalist wing, but also on the liberal wing. I think that some have developed sets of ideas, which they have formed into an ideology, and then they judge all things in the context of this one set of ideas. The traditionalists, for instance, focus heavily on the liturgy. But we cannot say that there is only one form in which the liturgy can be celebrated, that the extraordinary form is the only form of the Mass. We also cannot change the content of the holy Mass — it’s the same content — but some elements of the liturgy have developed. We have had a lot of rites, Roman, Byzantine, etc., and all are valid, and all have had a certain growth.
The SSPX and some traditionalists in communion with the Church have trouble reconciling the fact that we’ve had popes in the past who have categorically stated teachings that appeared to be refuted by the Council, religious freedom being one example. What do you say in response to this concern?
That is not true — it’s a false interpretation of history. In the 19th century, the freemasons or liberals interpreted religious freedom as the freedom to reject the truth given by God. It was this false notion of religious freedom that the popes of the 19th century rejected, and the Second Vatican Council repeats that we are not free to reject the truth. It is on another level, on the level of human rights, that everyone has to be true to himself or herself and act according to his or her own conscience.
Furthermore, the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself — that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation. We cannot say today, “Jesus is the Son of God, he has a divine nature,” and then tomorrow accept what the Arians said [that Christ was distinctly separate from God the Father]. That would be a real contradiction.
What they [SSPX] are proposing is, in essence, a tension arising from the use of terminology, but the Church never contradicted herself. If you study the texts of different centuries, of different contexts, of different languages, you must do so on the basis of established Catholic doctrine.
Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent.
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today, “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church that person is in danger of losing salvation.
Therefore, we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts — and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.
Matthew Warner: Why the world doesn't take Catholicism seriously
Benjamin Wiker: Benedict XVI: Doctor of the Church
Comments
Post a Comment
This guy is a modernist.
He seems to ignore the statements of previous popes that clearly say that everyone needs to be a subject of the Roman Pontiff for salvation, including the Jews and other Christians. “No Salvation Outside the Church” does not just apply to apostate Catholics as he seems to think, considering that baptism and membership in the Church is never broken, even excommunication just prohibits functioning in the Church not membership.
Also his last statement is straight out of the modernist playbook, that past doctrinal statements are historically conditioned.
With this man in power at the CDF the church will get nowhere fast, except more autodestruction as seen by Paul VI.
He needs to be promoted out as Nuncio to Iran ....
“The Church is not a fortress, but, rather, a sacrament, a sign, a symbol and an instrument for the salvation for all people. The apostles were sent into the world to preach the Gospel and to edify and instill hope in people. So we are the witnesses and missionaries of that faith, hope and love, and this is the first task of the whole Church.”
Do I hear an “AMEN!”
Honestly that is the best summaries I have heard on the topic for a while. And it addresses today’s problems at the same time.
“In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved.”
>> How, please, is this different in any way at all from the modern schismatics and heretics…err…separated brethren?
Rod,
He is not saying what you’re stating. He is clear about Catholics who have renounced/“walked away from” their faith, for these folks have been clearly taught, hopefully, but he cannot state the same thing about others where he states, “we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.” The key term here is “inculpably ignorant.” Unless you can read hearts, nobody knows except Jesus Christ Himself how to judge each and every individual, and it BEHOOVES us to show some humility with regards to viewing how all of this would “actually” occur. Other than this clear distinction, it is true that salvation is only through His Holy Roman Catholic Church as the Cardinal clearly has stated:
-
Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
-
He couldn’t be clearer.
Archbishop Gerhard Müller: ‘The Church Is Not a Fortress’
>> Certainly not lately anyway.
What fuels secularism?
Tradition?
...Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship…
Psychic driving?
...And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries…
I remember another head of the Holy Office who in June 2000, wrote regarding the supposed full discloser of the Third Secret of Fatima, “The concluding part of the secret uses images which Lucia may have seen in devotional books.” His name was Joseph Ratzinger. The apple dosen’t fall far from the tree, does it! You can read the full document at EWTN. Just google, “Fatima Secret Message and Commentary”. The quote I referred to is in the “Theological Commentary” section.
Based on what Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) said in the “RATZINGER REPORT”, Apb Muller sounds very much like him in the answers to the questions posed in this article.
There are heretics both on the liberal and the conservative side.
Please read the ‘Ratzinger Report’. - Very good book.
Archbishop Mueller did not say that “No Salvation Outside the Church” ONLY applies to apostate Catholics…you have misinterpreted his words above! His quote from Lumen Gentium makes his and the Church’s position clear on what is meant. It’s a pity that people continue, in the face of facts, to quote out of context. Even worse…to deliberately misconstrue?
Rod,
What the Cardinal is saying is that you cannot take a Papal statement intended to address one issue, and assume that it addresses every possible case. Those papal statements do not address the different ways in which one enters the church. For baptism of desire, you can see the council of Trent and St. Thomas. Since Pius IX, (Quanto Concifiamur Moerore, 1853), Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi), Paul VI (Lumen Gentium), Blessed John Paul II (CCC and Dominus Iesus) and now Benedict XVI all have what you term a ‘modernist’ understanding, then you had better ensure you are not embracing cafeteria catholicism and laying on others a burden too great to bear. A non-Catholic who reads your post may well think he had best stay away from the Church, since it holds such an unreasonable view. You are doing the Church a disservice by publicly proposing as true Catholicism your own personal interpretation, against the ordinary Magisterium and repeated writings of the Popes. Remember that YOU are subject to the Roman Pontiff.
I like his seeing instilling hope as primary. He is lock step with Benedict’s hermeneutic of continuity which is salesmanship really. It is better to require manifest clarity before saying an old document was infallible. He and Benedict are saying that all contradictions are only apparent….rather than admitting that the Church herself believes that not every document is infallible. Leo X in 1520 in Exsurge Domine condemned as “against the Catholic Faith” Luther’s statement that burning heretics was against the Holy Spirit….and any Catholics not agreeing with Leo X were excommunicated latae sententiae. Now the entire Church after Vat.II agrees with Luther not with Leo X. What about Christ? Christ twice praised the life choices of the Samaritans who were heretical as to the canon and who changed a sentence in the pentateuch to make Mt. Gerizim the chosen place of God. But Christ chose to praise their behaviour as not flowing from their heresy ( the good Samaritan and a Samaritan was the only one of ten cured lepers to return and thank Christ). The old Church did believe in coercion and the Spanish Inquisition had papal affirmation. Vat II opposed coercion in religion and is more in keeping with Christ’s openness to Samaritans having real virtue as Vat.II saw Protestants having real relationship to God. That change is real not apparent and not explainable simply because heretics were simultaneously sometimes a criminal problem centuries ago. I like his instiling hope as first but he will continue salesmanship in this “we never really changed” mantra of the hermeneutic of continuity. The change on the death penalty was an example of change covered up with a concept….we now have life sentences. Baloney. There were life sentences in the Roman empire called damnata ad metalla…damned to the mines. There were life sentences mentioned in the documents of the inquisition.
Stop the salesmanship. The last two Popes simply hate the death penalty but God did not. Check Rom.13:4.
Rod,
‘Context’ and ‘historically conditioned’ are two different things. An earlier document whose purpose is to establish the authority of the Pope has no reason to delve into other details which may be related but are not the subject at hand.
Muller says, “That everyone has to be true to himself or herself and act according to his or her conscience.” Traditionalists find that the Liturgy is the most important thing in life, which it is. Muller disrespects them for that. On at least 2 ocassions he called the Traditionalists “stupid”. I don’t understand how a man who has a deep seated disrespect for the SSPX, be responsible for their reconciliation. It is going to be catastrophic for the Church, if they excommunicate the most faithful Catholics of the Church during the Year of Faith. Muller needs to be true to himself and make the reconciliation with the SSPX a reality. Thats the job the Pope has given him! Will he fail the Holy Father?
@ Angelo
SSPX the most faithful Catholics of the Church? Seriously? In our area they don’t even meet their Sunday mass obligation and only have a visiting priest twice monthly. A rosary (prayer devotion) does not suffice or replace the Holy Mass which you yourself claim as the “most” important thing in life. I know many daily mass attendees who live lives of regular prayer, frequent Eucharistic adoration and service to the Gospel that shines the light of Christ in our midst. Only God judges hearts and knows the holiness and devotion of souls.
Archbishop Muller rightly says, “We have breakaway groups, not only the traditionalist wing, but also on the liberal wing.” I ask in all fairness, will the liberal wing receive the same treatment as the Traditionalist wing? If both are breakaway groups, will the liberal wing be treated the same? That is, will they be ordered to sign a “Doctrinal Preamble” as a condition to remain in the Church? Or will it be a double standard, and the liberal wing receive preferential treatment as they have in past 45 years? With their conscience being respected in the name of Religious Freedom and Ecumenism? In the Year of Faith these will be the type of legitimate questions asked by all. This Year of Faith is probably the most important event since Vatican Council ll. We must all ask Our Lady’s intercession for a truly fruitful year for the whole Church.
From what he has written, and said elsewhere, it seems like to go to hell you would have to consciously state: “Yes, I know that Catholicism is the one true Church; and yet I deliberately reject it.” People don’t consciously think that way: there is always a rationalization of some kind.
@ Stephen Spencer - recommend you read What We can’t Not Know by J Budziszewski available here http://www.ignatius.com/Products/WWCNK-P/what-we-cant-not-know.aspx
@ Angelo - unfortunately the SSPX pushed the issue with the ordination of four Bishops without Papal approval and garnered excommunication. Where has the liberal wing done this and not been dealt with in like manner?
I think it is pretty clear that real people, protestants, jews and others are not invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church, heck if everyone knows who Obama is, I think they have a pretty clear idea about Our Lord, one way or another.
So let’s just put aside the pathetic excuse of invincible ignorance.
So what do we have left? We have people who have taken sides in the religious question, they have their prejudices and they seek to confirm or question them.
This being the case, Archbishop Muller’s argument doesn’t work. If “Outside the Church, No Salvation” only applies to apostate Catholics and we can excuse the invinicibly ignorant(if any truly exist) , what is left for the Protestants, jews and others?
He hasn’t answered that politically charged question and nor is he likely to do it.
I agree he has said a few, a very few good things about the Church not being simply a social service organization, but he also neutralizes her missionary zeal by watering down dogma supporting the promotion of conversions.
One key task for the CDF is to simplify these arguments so that doctrinal support is given to the efforts of the missions. As long as there are so many gray areas, equivocations and watered down truths afoot the “I am OK, he is OK” status quo will continue.
Do you really think Our Lord was splitting hairs with the apostles when he gave them their commission?
Salvation is the fundamental purpose of the Church and so it is better to err on the side of conversion than apathy, if one truly believes that hell fire is in the mix.
I venture to guess that many prelates have simply lost the faith and enjoy these mental gymnastics to pass the time.
Interesting interview.
Thank you Register.
KAT, The act of Schism by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is trying to be put behind us by the Holy Father, with his call for a reconciliation. In Christianity this is known as forgiveness. The Pope is offering them a Papal Prelature, in order to protect them from modernist Prelates. Once under Papal Prelature no Bishop will be able to push the SSPX around. Could you imagine Hitler being put in charge of the safety of Jews. Well look at who has been put in charge of the reconciliation process with the SSPX. The liberal wing has only been causing unimaginable destruction to the Church for 45 years. Heresy upon heresy upon heresy. Falsly interpreting the Council. Rejecting all that the Council actualy said. Attempting to create a new Church. Destroying the True Nature of the Mass in the hearts of most Catholics. Confusing the faithful on everything Catholic. Destroying the teaching of the fullness of truth. Rejecting all truth and inventing their own. Outright defying the Holy Father, and forcing others to do the same. Destroying the priesthood and Religious Life. Destroying the beauty of the House of God. Destroying everthing Catholic. And YET they are in so called GOOD STANDING with the Church? Traditionalists still believe in the Catholic Faith, they defend it and are battling for the truth to prevail. And they are not considered to be in good standing with the Church!?
@Angelo I appreciate your comments and most especially that you at least admit that the SSPX is in schism a fact which is vehemently denied locally by priest and congregation. There is nothing new under the sun. Jesus came for sinners and the Church is indeed filled with them. There is great need for catechesis, repentence and conversion of hearts and there always will be. I have read and shared the Vatican II documents frequently and defend the truth as needed. SSPX has left the body of Christ to keep themselves “pure” and ceased to be leaven. One has to ask that if those that loved God enough to sacrifice, be ridiculed, and teach truth been reinforced by the ranks of the SSPX would the destruction you outline have been allowed to infect and infest to this extent. Satan is the father of all lies and division. Would that Christ’s prayer that we be one as he and the father are one pierce the hearts of all those outside the Catholic Church.
The archbishop’s answers, unfortunately, seem not to respond to the points raised. Edward Pentin asked him specifically about religious liberty, and when presented with the allegation of contradiction, the archbishop seems more or less to say “There isn’t one.” That’s really not a convincing and adequate reply. To show that there’s no contradiction he must actually reply to the specific points raised by the SSPX. It’s not enough to baldly assert “They’re wrong” and then imagine that he’s refuted them. No one has the right to follow a false religion simply because his conscience tells him to do so. Mohammed Atta’s conscience told him to hijack an aircraft and slam it into a building, incinerating hundreds of people in a terrifying act of murder. His conscience was very sincere on this point, so sincere that he died a fiery death to follow it. How many people are that sincere? But in spite of following his conscience sincerely, he was sincerely wrong. The same is true of those whose conscience sincerely tells them to reject Christ’s divinity, to blaspheme Him, to deny His Real Presence, etc. There can never be a “liberty” or “right” to do such things. You didn’t even need the preconciliar century popes to tell you that; it’s common sense.
It is also wrong to imply or suggest that “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” applies only to those who are aware of the Church, as though invincible ignorance were some sort of sacrament. Being inside the Church at the moment of death is necessary for the salvation of all, ignorant and not ignorant. The Fourth Lateran Council stated this infallibly: “There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” “No one at all” includes the ignorant. Ignorance is not a means of salvation. It is not a sacrament.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains this well:
“Any attempt to explain the Church’s necessity for salvation by claiming that it is only the “ordinary” means, or by imagining that it is requisite only for those who are aware of its dignity and position, is completely false and unacceptable.” (The Catholic Church and Salvation, by Msgr. Fenton)
St. Thomas Aquinas says that if a man is living in invincible ignorance and sincerely seeking the truth, God, Who wills all men to know the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), will find a way to enlighten that man as to the true Faith, as He did for the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts of the Apostles 8) and Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10). He does not say that God will leave a man forever in a state of invincible ignorance. There is no ignorance so invincible that an all-powerful Being cannot dispel it. To say otherwise implies that God is somehow not powerful enough to enlighten an ignorant man about the true Faith, or that God somehow does not want the ignorant man to know the truth, both of which are false.
Michael,
I see your point and I’m in agreement with it but you don’t consider the means by which this will be done, which can be ANYWAY God wants. And why can it be ANYWAY God wants? For example, how about the 5th century Mayan (i.e., put any person that hadn’t yet heard of Jesus Christ and His Church), or the current indigenous people in the Brazilian amazon that have been photographed that have had no contact with modern civilization? These folks have not been evangelized and God in His infinite mercy will have a way to reach them that are not necessarily the means by which others have come to know The Church. I think you are not understanding and in your zeal to tell the Truth about the Church, which I also believe to be true, are dissecting the words of an individuals that have been given the charism to make these pronunciations.
KAT, I was an adherent of the SSPX until 1988 when Lefebvre commited the grave act of Schism. After that I was no longer an adherent of the Society. 1988 was a time when the false interpretaion of Vatican Council ll was at its zenith. Lefebvre had some good arguments as to why he consecrated 4 Bishops, despite the Holy Father’s warning not to do it. But the fact is that according to Canon Law of the Church, his was in fact an act of schism. Today the SSPX has had the humility to admit they were wrong in certain areas and have sought to rectify those wrongs. Pope Benedict XVl lifted the excommunication of the 4 Bishops. So now the question lingers. Are they still in Schism? Some say yes, others say no. As for myself I do not have an opinion one way or the other. My hope is that they do reconcile with the Church. One fact that is no secret is that there are many who not not want a reconciliation, and all those are liberals. They have spoken for 45 years of love and understanding for others, but they have shown that there is to be no love or understanding for Traditionalists. I believe that they want no reconciliation to come about, only because it would ruin their 45 year party!
Michael,
Regarding your quote from the Lateran Council, I don’t know if you have read only the quotes or if you have read the entire document, thought about what the purpose of the document was, and whether it was appropriate in those documents to discuss things such as baptism of desire. Your quote was from a brief introductory ‘statement of faith’. The next sentence was about the Eucharist. The one after that about the priesthood, then Penance. You wouldn’t expect a discourse on how if you plan to go to confession but die on the way you still are saved, NOR a detailed analysis of how the ignorant can be incorporated into the Church in a mysterious way known only by God.
Similar statements found in Papal Bulls and documents aimed at bringing heretics into line are not the occassion to discuss these types of things either. Baptism of desire _was_ discussed in Trent, which was an appropriate occassion.
Regarding invincible ignorance, Pius IX, 1863, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, wrote
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
I hope you do not give validity only to ‘infallible’ sources, as this would mean you are rejecting the living, ordinary Magisterium.
Blessings.
In an interview yesterday Oct. 05, Archbishop Muller says no more talks with the SSPX. I never knew he had any talks with them. All we heard was his criticisms of the Society. Calling them “stupid”, and referring to them as “rebels”. Since when is someone or some group, who love the Church and defend her and are gladly willing to be slandered for their love for Christ’s Church, A “rebel” or is “stupid”? Later in the day he made a change in his comments saying, “We must maintain hope”. What a quick change of heart! Or did the Holy Father correct him? I detect a new plot from the evil one. Liberals are now talking about V2 as if the horror of the past 45 years never happened. They are trying to make it seem as if all has been fine since the end of V2. They want us to forget the nightmare ever happend, they want to convince younger Catholics that the Traditionalists are the bad guys. And that liberals alone have been preserving the truth all this time. May Our Lady crush this new plot.
Heh.. Need download the XRUMER 7.5.31
Or maybe for cash. Anybody sell? I can pay via Western Union!
Thanks
abimopectore,
I didn’t disagree with what you said: “you don’t consider the means by which this will be done, which can be ANYWAY God wants.” That was exactly my point, and St. Thomas Aquinas’s. God can find anyway He wishes to reveal the Catholic Faith to an indigenous 5th century Mayan who faithfully follows the natural law. St. Thomas says that God can miraculously enlighten the man’s intellect in a “flash of insight,” send him a preacher, or even if necessary send him an angel to instruct him, as He did for Cornelius (Acts of the Apostles chapter 10). But the critical point is that if the Mayan is saved, he will be saved as a Catholic, and by being (prior to death) brought inside the Church, not by being left outside it and somehow “saved” by his ignorance. So if that was what you were saying, I fully agree with you. Many people speak of the ignorant as though they will be saved while dying in their ignorance and outside the Church, which is simply wrong. If they are saved, then God ensures that they are inside the Church before death.
Lisa,
My comment was not about the so-called “Baptism of desire.” Baptism of desire does not take away the necessity of having the true Faith for salvation (cf. Hebrews 11:6). The Council of Trent defined infallibly that faith (and there is only one true faith; cf. Ephesians 4:5) is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that no man can be in the state of grace without it. You said that the ignorant “can be incorporated into the Church in a mysterious way known only by God,” and I agree with you entirely. Actually that’s precisely my point; the ignorant, if they are ignorant right now, before death MUST be brought inside the Church if they are to be saved, even if that happens in the last instant of their life and is observed by no one, for Christ said of the sheep He had not of this fold (the Church), not that He would leave them outside the Church, but that He had to bring them inside (John 10:16).
Your quote from Blessed Pius IX also says this; the pope says that the ignorant can be saved “by the efficacious virtue of divine light.” But what does “divine light” mean? In theological contexts, the “divine light” refers to the light of faith, which St. Thomas Aquinas describes as the first purification of the intellect. So the pope is actually saying that someone invincibly ignorant will be saved, if he is saved, by cooperating with God’s grace which will bring him into the Church, not leave him outside of it. A great example of this sort of miraculous last-second conversion can be found in the life of Fr. Hermann Cohen’s Jewish mother, who was saved at the very last moment of her life and brought into the Church by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You can hear this remarkable story here: http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20070225-Father-Augustine-Marie-of-the-Most-Blessed-Sacrament-part-2.html
God bless you both, and happy feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary.
Michael,
Thank you for clarifying your position: “The ignorant, if they are ignorant right now, before death MUST be brought inside the Church if they are to be saved, even if that happens in the last instant of their life and is observed by no one.”
I agree with you, and the above is my understanding as well. From your original post, it seemed that you believed only those who are formally (ie. through water baptism) in the Catholic Church could be saved.
Blessings.
Michael: If one chooses to reject what they have been told are Catholic Church teachings by a malicious detractor (i.e., satan personified), and a sin is involved, the sin falls upon the one who turns him away from Christ. Going on misinformation in making a decision to remain outside Catholicism (the only church Christ Himself heads) would then be a good thing! For instance, if one is taught that Catholicism worships snakes and one rejects that, good for them! Ignorance of the true teachings of Christ does not send a person to Hell. Choosing to reject His teachings, once clearly known, will. Scripture says God writes his truth on our hearts and this is something everyone can refer to for our life’s decisions. Letting God intervene in our lives with an open and discerning heart leads us to His Holy Catholic Church - none other.
Linda Nelson,
You said: “Ignorance of the true teachings of Christ does not send a person to Hell.”
This is not what the Church has taught. In his encyclical “Acerbo Nimis,” Pope Saint Pius X said the following:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”“
Ignorance is not a virtue, it’s not a sacrament, and it doesn’t get someone to Heaven. Ignorance is a bad thing; that’s why great missionaries like Francis Xavier and Isaac Jogue sought to dispel the ignorance of the pagans and other non-Catholics to whom they preached, because they knew that if they died in that ignorance, they would be lost.
As St. Thomas Aquinas taught, if a man is ignorant through no fault of his own, but seeks the truth sincerely, then God will eventually reveal it to him. And if that man fails to correspond with God’s grace, which is being given to him specifically to remove him from ignorance, then when he fails to do his ignorance is no longer inculpable, and he becomes guilty of sin.
Muller has got that right: The conciliar Church is not a fortress. Holy Mother (The Catholic) Church however is the true fortress and refuge for all. We are taught by Pontiffs there is no salvation outside the Church Christ established. St. Cyprian said if we do not have Church as Mother we will not have God as Father.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.